What existed before the universe is not the universe. It is still an appeal to whatever is beyond the universe, so the universe is not the necessary existence. Whatever you say it is, that is still undetectable. And it is all any of what could be.
That's just semantics - it doesn't matter what you call it, I'm referring to 'all there is', commonly called the universe, the multiverse, the metaverse, the greater universe, or what-have-you. I'm suggesting that the
observable universe is just a new phase of a prior physical state.
It is 'necessarily existent' because it exists - it is
all that exists, i.e. it can't
not be, its existence is not contingent. 'Nothing' can't
exist, there can't
be nothing; 'nothing' is the concept of negation, not a state of existence.
You do not show how it continues on without end, when it would not be in the same form. What could it be? According to what I find is said about it, it would not be the universe anymore, after some great length of time, though it is a matter of different projections. This really does not characterize necessary existence.
How it changes is irrelevant, it will still be the universe (all that is). Immediately after the big bang, the universe was in a completely different form to what we see today, even the fundamental forces were different. In the far future of heat-death, it will be more like the universe of today than was the universe immediately after the big bang.
I did not think I have to spell out the logic. What necessarily must exist would then always exist, that way. The universe itself is contingent, if there was a big bang at the beginning, that shows it.
As I said, I'm suggesting that the big bang was only the beginning of the particular phase of the universe we find ourselves in - just as your birth was only the beginning of the particular phase of your lineage that you find yourself in.
It is not pompous to say you would not understand more, that is, unless I said I do understand more of that. I don't understand more either, ...
It is pompous (and rude) to say 'X
is beyond your capacity to understand it' without providing an explanation of X, and it strains credulity that you would say that if you really meant, 'X
is beyond our capacity to understand it'.
Why use the term if you think neither of us has the capacity to understand it?
I say that what can be known of necessary existence, which is unlimited, is that it goes beyond what we know, and we can only know that much, from the logic that there is necessary existence. If there was nothing that is necessary existence, there would not be anything at all, there would never be reason for anything if there was not already existence. The existence there always was is that necessary existence, without limit.
Yep, the universe (as I described above) fits all that very well.
...necessary existence has capacity to create, being unlimited, any capacity of necessary existence is without limit. That is spelling out the logic I would think could be understood, hopefully that will be adequate.
You made this assertion before and I asked you to substantiate it - so far all you've done is repeat it - it is not a logical statement. I've seen a few definitions of necessary existence, but none say anything about capacity to create or 'being unlimited' - if they have a logical connection to necessary existence, you need to make it clear, e.g. "necessary existence implies the capacity to create and being unlimited
because... <some explanation>".
You want to know what imperishable means? It is characterizing what would never perish.
So what do you mean by '
perish' in this context?
The universe will not cease to exist in any physical sense, it will either continue expanding indefinitely, becoming ever more empty of matter, or it will undergo another phase transition to a lower energy background state which will continue indefinitely. Either way, it will continue in some form. It can't go away, there's literally nowhere for it to go - it's all there is.
And how I described it is not embellishing it, what was said was definitional of necessary existence, what is not with such characteristic of existing necessarily is not necessary existence.
Please provide a reference for your definition - i.e. one that involves the '
capacity to create' and '
being unlimited'. I'm curious to know your source.
If you conceive that there is a greater universe that is beyond this universe and is eternally existing, with no cause beyond it as it explains itself, necessarily existing, how is that, and what would it be?
Clearly, since it necessarily exists, there is no '
how', it just
is; what it is, is the 'greater universe' (if that's the term you prefer - metaverse and multiverse are other options), a physical state following physical laws. That's all that's necessary.